Constitutional Court

KI49/19, Applicant: Limak Kosovo International Airport J.S.C., “Adem Jashari”, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 16/2019, of the  Supreme Court of 7 February 2019 

KI49/19, Resolution   of  10 September 2019, published on 21 October 2019

Keywords: individual referral, legal person, manifestly ill-founded referral,

The Applicant submitted the Referral to the Court requesting the constitutional review of the Judgment [Rev. No. 16/2019] of 7 February 2019 of the Supreme Court.

The Applicant signed a Public Private Partnership Agreement with the Republic of Kosovo, which stipulated, inter alia, that after the third anniversary of the contracts with its employees, it may terminate them without any restriction, and based on this provision, the employment contract was not extended to the respective employee. The Basic Court and the Court of Appeals, by their respective Judgments, rejected the claim and appeal of the respective employee, while the Supreme Court, by Judgment [Rev. No. 16/19] of 7 February 2019, partially approved the revision of the employee as grounded, modifying the lower instance decisions and annulling the Applicant’s notice of non-extension of the employment contract.

The Applicant alleges that the Judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered in violation of its constitutional rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR specifically due to the lack of reasoning of the court decision and erroneous interpretation of the Law on Labor. The Applicant also alleged a violation of Articles 32, 54 and 46 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR.

The Court, applying the ECtHR case law regarding the Applicant’s allegation of lack of a reasoned decision, recalled that the regular courts are obliged to address and reason the substantive allegations of the parties, and in the present case the Court emphasized that the Applicant, failing to respond to the revision of the employee submitted before the Supreme Court, did not in fact present his arguments before the latter. As a result, the Supreme Court could not address the Applicant’s allegations. In addition, the Applicant also did not sufficiently prove and substantiate his allegation regarding the lack of reasoning of the challenged decision of the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the Court found that the Applicant’s Referral is to be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.